Why is, it in these type of questions, people always immediately go to the worst case scenario to try and prove their point? What about the average case: people again learn to plan their routes in advance, use their instincts, road signs, and if necessary, how to use a map.
You also assume you can't get lost using a GPS. All data has the potential to be stale. Maybe the route the gps took you is through a mountainous road where there is no signal. What happens when you come across an unfamiliar geographical feature and are unsure how to proceed, and now your gps cannot update your location? What if the location you are attemping to access is "net new" as in new roads? What if the location simply no longer exists and your mapping service has not been updated? In my experience, GPS is great for city driving with clear path to the sky (and >50% battery for any trip that is over an hour). Not so good in mountainous or remote locations. I imagine if we didn't rely on a computer telling us where something is, we would revert back to the default behavior of actually learning our surroundings, which has a host of other benefits that you never know would come in handy until they do.